Hey everyone,
I came across this article today and I found it interesting after just covering the section on s.31(2) and Bell Canada v 1325030 Ontario
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/locast-copyright-1235007484/
Locast was a video streaming service directed at “cord cutters.” Locast advertised itself as a non-profit organization that provided users with online access to broadcast television stations. CBS, Fox, ABC, and NBC sued Locast, alleging that it was a business built on the unauthorized use of broadcaster content.
Locast appeared to be attempting to invoke a defence similar to our common carrier exemption, but in the United States, the law requires that the secondary transmission be “made by a governmental body or other nonprofit organization without regard for direct or indirect commercial gain.” Rather than being viewed as an unlicensed cable operator, Locast was attempting to fit within this narrow exemption.
It’s an interesting article, and it got me thinking about some corporations’ monopolies on broadcasting. Locast contended that it was simply attempting to advance their charitable mission by increasing public access to free local television channels. Every 15 minutes, Locast would interrupt a television stream with an advertisement requesting a monthly fee, which the company referred to as donations. Locast was allegedly funded by these donations, which the plaintiffs argued constituted a “freemium” business model.
The judge never reached a conclusion on the copyright issue, but did rule that Locast was ineligible to claim the secondary transmission exemption.The judge ruled that fundraising could be used only to cover operating expenses and not for the purpose of expanding into new markets (which Locast had grew exponentially). If a corporation is growing but only retransmitting local signals to local communities, when does one cross the line of 31(2)(A)?
Communications Law